09/15/2014 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
September 15, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
President Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
ROLL CALL
Present: President Rogers
Vice President Fitzgerald
Commissioner.Doherty
Commissioner Feeney
Alt. Commissioner Goodhouse
Commissioner Muldoon
Commissioner Ouellette
Commissioner Schmidt
Absent: Commissioner Enloe; Commissioner Gaschke; Alt. Commissioner
Mooney
Staff Present: Kenny Asher, Community Development ?Director; Tom McGuire,
Assistant Community Development Director;Agnes Kowacz,Associate
Planner; Greg Berry, Project Engineer; Susan Shanks, Senior Planner;
Marissa Grass, Associate Planner;Joe Patton, Sr. Administrative Specialist
Also Present: Matt Newman, NW Engineers
COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Fitzgerald noted that the next Tigard Triangle open house meeting is scheduled
for Wednesday, September 17, 2014 from 4:30 7:00 pm at the Family Baptist Church.
CONSIDER MINUTES
August 18 Meeting Minutes: President Rogers asked if there were any additions, deletions, or
corrections to the August 18 minutes; there being none, Rogers declared the minutes
approved as submitted.
PUBLIC HEARING: PDR2014-00001/SUB2014-00002 — GRACELAND Subdivision
President Rogers opened the public hearing and stated the following:
Page 1 of 7
The applicant is requesting a Type III-Planning Commission (PC) Planned Development
Review and Subdivision approval for a six lot subdivision of a 1.26 acre site located on the
south side of SW Walnut Street, mid-block between SW Watkins Avenue and SW Grant
Avenue. The development will be served by a new public street from SW Walnut Street and a
private access drive from the new street.
QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS
President Rogers read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial
hearing guide. There were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the commissioners for
bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: Commissioner Muldoon
noted that he drives by the site as part of his commute, but that he had not specifically visited
the site. No one wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission; no conflicts of
interest.
STAFF REPORT
Associate Planner Agnes Kowacz was introduced and entered into the record a supplemental
report (Exhibit A) submitted by the applicant subsequent to the mailing of the meeting items:
Revised Urban Forestry Supplemental Report, Revised Tree Canopy Site Plan, Revised Tree
Preservation and Removal Plan, and Revised Landscape Plan. She presented three slides
showing the Concept Plan, Detailed Development Plan, and the Revised Landscape Plan
(Exhibit B) and reviewed the staff report, noting the City received one written positive
comment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is asking Planning Commission to make three separate Motions:
• Approve the Concept Plan;
• Approve the Detailed Development Plan; and,
• Approve the Plan Development Overlay Zone.
Staff recommends that Planning Commission find that the proposed Planned Development
and Subdivision permit will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and
meets all applicable Standards as listed in Section V of the Staff Report. Staff recommends
APPROVAL of the Concept Plan, Detailed Development Plan, and the Plan Development
Overlay Zone, subject to the conditions that are stated in the Staff Report.
QUESTIONS
Commissioner Muldoon asked if there were any proposed accessory units and for clarification
on whether they could be units with wheels, or if they could be added later. Agnes stated that
accessory residential units are allowed but are subject to the approval process, limited in size
and must be incorporated into the single-family residence, so it would not be a trailer.
Commissioner Feeney asked about the site distance as he has a safety concern for the Walnut
Street access. Greg Berry stated that the City has reviewed and approved the sight distance at
the Walnut Street access and the safety concerns were adequately addressed.
Page 2 of 7
APPLICANTS TESTIMONY
Matt Newman, NW Engineers, Land Use Planner, referred the Commissioners to Exhibit 19
of the applicant's submittal packet to address the sight distance question and Exhibit 25 which
contains a photograph of the Walnut Street intersection. He stated they would have to work
with one neighbor to relocate some bushes and the other neighbor to potentially remove part
of a dividing wall. The entire width of the access is needed for road and sidewalk. The existing
house will be retained, as will three out of four existing trees. Several designs were considered
but a challenge for the site was dealing with stormwater and fitting the street into the entrance.
The design chosen is a public street with a terminus with all houses facing the cul-de-sac. It
will include public access to the school. A catch basin will be used for the driveways, private
street tract and the public street with the water being untreated. There are two conditions in
the staff report that require a 6-foot width sidewalk, but there is only enough room for a 5-
foot width sidewalk, so they will need to work with engineering regarding this requirement.
They are requesting a fee in-lieu for stormwater as street swells were initially planned, but
engineering decided parking was more important and the design was changed accordingly. The
tree canopy criterion is met with the revised plan but the street tree requirement cannot be
met and a fee in-lieu is requested. Low maintenance landscaping is planned with trail lighting
along with a play area in the open area.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Doherty asked what is meant by a fee in-lieu of in referred to stormwater. Mr.
Newman stated that Clean Water Services and the City have a provision that if a water quality
facility is not provided a fee is paid which goes into a fund, the same is true for street trees.
Commissioner Feeney asked about the stormwater options and Mr. Newman responded that
it may be possible to treat stormwater from a driveway or two, but other issues with grade and
groundwater make it infeasible. Commissioner Feeney asked about the need to reduce the
sidewalk to five feet. Mr. Newman stated that the reduction was necessary given the retaining
walls and the street width requirements. Agnes stated that conditions listed in the staff report
can be modified by the Commission.,
TESTIMONY REGARDING THE SUBDIVISION
Ken Ziglinski, 10230 SW Walnut St., Tigard asked if the existing flashing sign for the
crosswalk would be removed as he is concerned about the safety of children crossing there.
REBUTTAL FOR APPLICANT
Matt Newman stated that engineering will require them to complete a signage plan and he
believes they would have to show that sign or where it may be relocated. The placement
cannot be determined as the final decision will be up to the City.
Page 3 of 7
CITY ENGINEERING CLARIFICATION
Greg Berry stated that the sidewalk width would be reviewed, but the main concern is sight
distance. He noted that usually only a 5-foot wide sidewalk is required but the extra foot was
added since it is up against the curb. He is confident a solution can be reached which could
include regrading Walnut Street in that area to reduce the curb cut. Commissioner Feeney
suggested adding "or as approved by the City Engineer or City staff" to both conditions.
PUBLIC HEARING - CLOSED
DELIBERATIONS
Vice President Fitzgerald commended the design and its attention to the City code.
Commissioner Doherty stated it was important to work with the developer regarding the
width of the sidewalk and commended the design for making the area look more like a
neighborhood rather than a development. Commissioner Feeney agreed and added that fewer
lots were designed than City standards allowed to make room for things such as the public
access to the school. He noted the need to maintain the sight distance at the Walnut Street
access point. President Rogers remarked that this design fits into the City's vision of being
more interconnected with walkable paths and a safe route with access point to the school.
FIRST MOTION
Commissioner Muldoon made the following motion - seconded by Vice President Fitzgerald:
"I move for approval of the Concept Plan for PDR2014-00001 and SUB2014-00002."
A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
SECOND MOTION
Commissioner Doherty made the following motion -seconded by Commissioner Schmidt:
"I move for approval of application of the Graceland Detailed Development Plan for
PDR2014-00001 and SUB2014-00002."
A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
THIRD MOTION
Commissioner Muldoon made the following motion - seconded by Commissioner Doherty:
"I move for approval of the Plan Development Overlay Zone of PDR2014-00001 and
SUB2014-00002 with the additional language "or as modified and approved by the City
staff" to condition 13 and condition 25 of the staff report, after "6-foot wide sidewalk"."
A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
Page 4 of 7
BRIEFING- RIVER TERRACE
Senior Planner, Susan Shanks, and Associate Planner Marissa Grass were introduced and
provided a briefing on the River Terrace design. Marissa stated the purpose of tonight's.
meeting is to prepare you for your upcoming River Terrace public hearing on November 17th.
During that meeting the Commission will receive a report from staff, take public testimony,
and be asked to make a recommendation to Council regarding the proposal.
She noted that feedback tonight would be especially helpful to determine if there is need for
any additional information or anything the Commissioners are concerned about as we head
into the public hearing process. She stated that if there are questions about any of the logistics
hopefully they can be answered tonight.
Marissa noted that during the meeting last month Susan Shanks gave an update on River
Terrace. She stated the packet materials contained a table outlining the items that are being
adopted as part of the River Terrace Community Plan starting with the hearing in November.
Some of the items include Planning Commission review and recommendation, and others —
such as the funding strategy—do not. Specifically, the Planning Commission will review the
legislative items through the city's Type IV review procedure. As the memo describes, this
includes three separate ordinances. Commissioners will receive one single staff report
addressing the approval criteria for all three ordinances, and hold one public hearing on all
three items. The Planning Commission will be asked to recommend that Council either
approve, approve with amendments, or deny each ordinance. The Planning Commission may
also decide to continue the hearing (tentatively scheduled for December 1, 2014) if additional
time is needed to arrive at a recommendation for Council.
The first ordinance is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) and land use regulations for
River Terrace. The Community Plan addresses the city's comprehensive plan, state and
regional requirements and summarizes the results of the community planning process. An
outline of the draft plan was included in the meeting packet Attachment 1. It is being written
to follow the outline of the city's Comprehensive Plan (For example, Chapter 1 addresses
Goal 1 citizen involvement) so it should be somewhat familiar. The draft plan will be available
for public review beginning on October 2, 2014. There will be an open public comment
period until the end of October, any necessary revisions will be made, and a summary of this
feedback will be included in the staff presentation. Most of the Community Plan reiterates the
work that's been done to this point—the citizen involvement chapter describes the
engagement process to this point, for example —but some of it, and especially the presentation
of it in one place, will be new. In order to apply the city's land use regulations in River Terrace,
several maps must be updated. This includes the city's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps,
Natural resource maps (which update existing city maps that regulate tree groves, habitat
conservation areas), and wetland and riparian areas to include the River Terrace area. Detailed
inventory work was required to update each map and completed as part of the River Terrace
planning process. The Stakeholder Working Group reviewed all of the maps, and voted to
recommend adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. Since the natural resource
maps are very technical in nature, the SWG was not asked to recommend them for adoption.
Page 5 of 7
The second ordinance is for the Transportation System Plan Addendum. Metro requires that
the city adopt a local transportation system plan for River Terrace. As Susan discussed at the
last meeting this plan is being adopted as an addendum to the city's Transportation System
Plan (TSP), and because TSP amendments require a Type IV legislative process, this is the
only master plan element that the Planning Commission will review. The memo gives a brief
description of the City's TSP role, and this action will essentially add facilities in River Terrace
to the city's long-range transportation plan. Of the three ordinances, the TSP addendum has
had the most opportunities for stakeholder engagement. Transportation was discussed at a
number of SWG and community meetings, Tigard City Council reviewed the TSP Addendum
on June 17, 2014 in a workshop meeting, and key elements of the proposal were discussed
with the Planning Commission on August 18, 2014. The Stakeholder Working Group voted to
move the River Terrace TSP Addendum forward for adoption in June.
The third ordinance is Development Code Amendments specific to River Terrace (Ordinance
#3). This effort includes only those amendments that are critical to the initial implementation
of the RTCP and that were identified through the community planning process, such as
targeted changes to the city's Planned Development regulations and new text and graphics to
implement the River Terrace Boulevard design concept. For ease of use, these amendments
will be contained in a new River Terrace Plan District chapter.
Susan noted that Angelo Planning Group is assisting to implement River Terrace Boulevard in
addition to graphics and adding the new cross section as one does not exist that includes a
trail. It needs to be added to the Development Code so that it can be implemented as
envisioned. Some of the standards for residential properties that abut the Boulevard also need
to be reviewed so that the development that fronts it will frame it well. The Planned
Development Code Amendments are really specific to better align the Parks level of service
standards that are represented in the City's existing Park Master Plan and that have been
carried over to the River Terrace Park Master Plan Addendum.
Marissa noted that included in the memo is a section on community issues and concerns to
give an idea of the types of issues likely to be heard from stakeholders during the public
hearing. To date, transportation has been the most controversial/talked about master plan.
This is not surprising as transportation always rises to the top as the city's #1 issue to address.
Attachment 2 describes the range of transportation public involvement opportunities and
issues heard to date. The stakeholder working group considered this community input before
unanimously recommending adoption of the final draft plan. But as the memo describes, the
SWG also expressed concerns about project costs and funding. Additional community
concerns included timing with several stakeholders expressing that they are anxious to move
forward with development plans. Funding in general is another concern, in addition to funding
for transportation. While the planning commission will not be reviewing it, the draft funding
strategy is now available online at riverterracetigard.com and the city will host a series of three
public meetings and an online engagement opportunity to draw feedback on the strategy in
October.
Commissioner Ouellette noted that a tour of the River Terrace area took place the previous
year. He asked if a tour was planned before November so that new Commissioners could see
the area being discussed. Marissa stated that a video tour of the area may be available, but she
needs to check its availability online.
Page 6 of 7
Marissa noted that the River Terrace Community Plan will be available online on October 2,
2014 and the draft TSP Addendum is currently available online.
OTHER BUSINESS
Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director, informed the Commissioners
that Judith Gray had departed for a position with the City of Portland and that recruitment for
a Senior Transportation Planner to replace her was under way.
President Rogers stated that there was an oversight when reviewing the applications. There
were too many non-resident appointments to the Planning Commission due in part to
applications stating Tigard when individuals actually lived in unincorporated areas.
Commissioners Fitzgerald, Feeney, Enloe, Gaschke and Mooney are all non-residents. It does
not affect previous hearings, but will affect meetings from tonight moving forward. Staff
consulted with the City Attorney and then asked several Commissioners to consider resigning.
Commissioner Gaschke had moved to Beaverton and volunteered to step down.
Commissioner Mooney will remain as an alternate. Commissioner Enloe initially verbally
resigned but has since decided he would like to meet to discuss the issue. He noted that with
the reduced number of Commissioners it was especially important to attend each meeting so
that a quorum was present and that it would be beneficial to review the bylaws and Code of
Conduct. Tom McGuire noted that the citizen application form for Boards and Commissions
will be modified to be a bit clearer. He also noted that Alternate Commissioner Goodhouse
would have to be appointed by City Council if he's to fill one of the voting vacancies.
Kenny Asher, Community Development Director, offered to do a smaller tour of River
Terrace for any interested Commissioners. Staff will be in contact with more details.
ADJOURNMENT ,
President Rogers adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m.
Joe Patton,Planning Commissi ecretary
/
A EST: Presiden Jason ' •ters
Page 7 of 7
Graceland Subdivision
Urban Forestry Plan
Supplemental Report
Project Summary:
The applicant/owner, Brittany Meadows, LLC is requesting preliminary review for
a six-lot P.U.D. "Graceland" for a 1.26 acre (+/- 55,000 sq. ft.) lot zoned R-4.5
District (Low Density Residential) on the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The PUD
includes one open space tract-Tract A. The subject property is identified by the
Washington County assessor as Tax Lot 1 102 of Tax Map 2S1 02BC, and is further
defined as 10160 SW Walnut Street, Tigard 97223. There is one dwelling on the
property that will be retained on Lot 4.
B. Date of Report: September 5, 2014
C. Project Landscape Architect: Marianne Zarkin, ASLA
1020 SE 11th Avenue
Portland, OR 97214
marianne @mz-la.com
Landscape Architect Registration: Oregon #396, expiration 5/31/15
D. Inventory Table for the Tree Preservation and Removal Plan
Tree Genus sp./ DBH Canopy Open or Heritage Cond. Pres. Preserve? Comments
# Common Name (ft2) Stand Tree? Rating rating
Grown
1 Liquidambar 30" 452' Open No 1 2 Yes Heavy pruning,30%tree canopy
styraciflua/American
sweet gum
2 Quercus rubra/Red 36" 2826' Open No 3 3 Yes Good to excellent health
Oak
3 Prunus spp/Pie 30" 0' Open No 1 1 No The tree has been severely and
Cherry inappropriately pruned for years,leaving it
will no canopy remaining over this property
4 Pseudotsuga 36" 803' Open No 3 3 Yes Excellent health
menziesii/Douglas
Fir •
E. Inventory of Stand Trees: Not Applicable (N/A)
F. Supplemental Specifications Regarding Proposed Tree Protection Fencing
Tree protection fencing shall be installed around the root zone of each tree to
be retained before construction, excavation, demolition, land clearing, or
grading begins. The fencing should be installed at the limits of the tree canopy.
Tree protection fencing shall be a minimum of 5-foot high metal fencing,
secured by metal poles driven 2 feet into the ground. Metal posts must be no
more than 10 feet apart. All fencing shall remain in place until construction is
completed. Within the drip line or fenced areas, Contractor shall not store
materials, park or maneuver vehicles, excavate for utility or building construction,
construct new paved surfaces, or change the grade.
Marianne Zarkin Landscape Architects 1
Graceland Subdivision
Urban Forestry Plan
Supplemental Report
G. Supplemental Specifications For Tree Preservation
A. Protect all plant growth including root systems of trees and plants from:
1. Dumping of construction related refuse.
2. Chemically injurious materials and liquids used in construction process.
3. Noxious materials in solution caused by run-off and spillage during mixing
and placement of construction materials, and drainage from stored
materials.
4. Continual puddling of running water as a result of construction.
B. Protect root zones from flooding, erosion, excessive wetting and drying resulting
from de-watering and other operations.
C. Protect all existing plant material to remain against unnecessary cutting,
breaking and skinning of roots and branches, skinning or bruising of bark.
D. Engage a Consulting Arborist to direct removal of branches from trees and
large shrubs,which are to remain, if required to clear new construction and
where indicated; and to direct tree root pruning and relocation work.
E. Where directed by Consulting Arborist, extend pruning operations to restore
natural shape of trees and other plants impacted by construction activities.
F. Cut branches and roots with sharp pruning instruments, as specified. Do not
break, chip or mutilate.
G. Water trees and other vegetation, to remain, as necessary to maintain their
health during the course of the work. Maintain a water schedule and log of
watering operations.
H. Restrict vehicular and foot traffic, of all construction crews, to prevent
compaction of soil over root systems and within tree protection zones.
I. Excavate around tree roots within tree protection zone only under the
direction of a Consulting Arborist retained by the Contractor.
J. Where trenching for utilities is required within root zones, tunnel under and
around roots by hand digging. Do not cut main lateral support roots. Cut
smaller roots which interfere with installation of new work; using sharp pruning
tools as specified.
K. Where excavating for new construction is required within root zones of trees,
hand excavate to minimize damage to root systems. Use narrow tine spading
forks and comb soil to expose roots. Reposition roots in backfill areas whenever
possible. If large, main lateral roots are encountered, expose beyond
excavation limits as required to bend and relocate without breaking.
L. If roots are encountered within the limits of new construction and the Owner
determines that modification of the work is not practical, cut roots in
Marianne Zarkin Landscape Architects 2
Graceland Subdivision
Urban Forestry Plan
Supplemental Report
accordance with these specifications approximately 6 inches back from
proposed construction.
M. Do not allow exposed roots to dry out before permanent backfill is places;
provide temporary earth cover, pack with wet peat moss or 4 layers of wet
untreated burlap and temporarily support and protect from damage until roots
are permanently relocated and covered with backfill. Water to settle backfill
to eliminate voids and air pockets.
N. All pruning shall be performed to ANSI A-300 Pruning standards by Oregon
State registered tree care firms employing Certified Arborists. Other therapeutic
care work shall be performed to National Arborist Association standards.
O. Maintain existing grade within root zones of trees unless otherwise indicated or
approved by the Owner.
I. Soil Characteristics on Site:
Soil evidenced on site appears to be well draining, uncompacted with no obvious pH or
fertility issues. Plant materials appear to be generally in good health, and there are no
obvious areas with soil contamination.
J. Inventory of Proposed Trees for Tree Canopy Site Plan:
Tree Genus and Caliper Mature Mature Available Comments
# Species/Common or Canopy Canopy Soil
Name Ht. Width Area Volume
(SF) (CF)
5 Tsuga 5' ht. 40' 1256 Over
heterophylla/ 1000
Western Hemlock
•
6 Parrotia persica/ 1-1/2" 25' 491 Over
Persian Ironwood cal. 1000
7 Parrotia persica/ 1-1/2" 25' 491 Over
Persian Ironwood cal 1000
8 Parrotia persica/ 1-1/2" 25' 491 Over
Persian Ironwood cal 1000
9 Tsuga 5' ht. 40' 1256 Over
heterophylla/ 1000
Western Hemlock
10 Tsuga 5' ht. 40' 1256 Over
h e tero ph ylI a/ 1000
Western Hemlock
11 Fraxinus 1-1/2" 40' 1256 Over Street Tree
pennsylvanica cal. 1000 -
'Urbanite'/ Branched
Marianne Zarkin Landscape Architects 3
Graceland Subdivision
Urban Forestry Plan
Supplemental Report
Urbanite Ash * at 5' min.
12 Fraxinus 1-1/2" 40' 1256 Over Street Tree
pennsylvanica cal. 1000 -
Urbanite'/ Branched
Urbanite Ash * at 5' min.
13 Fraxinus 1-1/2" 40' 1256 Over Street Tree
pennsylvanica cal. 1000 -
Urbanite'/ Branched
Urbanite Ash * at 5' min.
14 Fraxinus 1-1/2" 40' 1256 Over Street Tree
pennsylvanica cal. 1000 -
'Urbanite'/ Branched
Urbanite Ash * at 5' min.
15 Fraxinus 1-1/2" 40' 1256 Over Street Tree
pennsylvanica cal. 1000 -
`Urbanite'/ Branched
Urbanite Ash * at 5' min.
16 Styrax japonicus/ 1-1/2" 25' 491 Over
Japanese cal. 1000
Snowbell
17 Styrax japonicus/ 1-1/2" 25' 491 Over
Japanese cal. 1000
Snowbell
18 Fraxinus 1-1/2" 40' 1256 Over
pennsylvanica cal. 1000
`Urbanite'/
Urbanite Ash *
19 Psuedotsuga 5' ht. 40' 1256 Over
menziesii/Douglas 1000
Fir
20 Parrotia persica/ 1-1/2" 25' 491 Over
Persian Ironwood cal 1000
21 Parrotia persica/ 1-1/2" 25' 491 Over
Persian Ironwood cal 1000
22 Parrotia persica/ 1-1/2" 25' 491 Over
Persian Ironwood cal 1000
23 Fraxinus 1-1/2" 40' 1256 Over
pennsylvanica cal. 1000
'Urbanite'/
Urbanite Ash *
24 Psuedotsuga 5' ht. 40' 1256 Over
menziesii/Douglas 1000
Fir
Marianne Zarkin Landscape Architects 4
Graceland Subdivision
Urban Forestry Plan
Supplemental Report
*Appendix 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual lists Fraxinus pennsylvanica as a
recommended street tree. This tree is not widely grown as the straight species,
rather numerous cultivars of this tree are grown and available. 'Urbanite' is a
cultivar that matures with a 40' wide canopy and 50' height. It is known as a
well-behaved street tree tolerant of city conditions, with lustrous green leaves
and deep bronze fall color.
K. Proposed Stand Data: N/A
L. Tree Planting Specifications:
Excavation of Plant Pits:
1. Planting holes shall be excavated with vertical sides and with
bottom slightly raised in middle. Subsoil in sides of the excavation
shall be loosened.
2. Excess excavated, unamended subsoil shall be disposed of and
not used in plant pit backfill. Such materials shall not be spread
over planting bed in planting areas.
3. Plant pit shall be filled with water and the water allowed to
percolate out prior to planting. If plant pits hold water for an
extended period or otherwise indicate poor subsurface drainage,
notify LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT prior to planting.
Planting Trees and Shrubs:
1. Containers,wire baskets, and twine shall be completely removed.
Burlap shall be completely removed from root balls.
2. Trees shall be set plumb and at the center of excavations with the
top of the root crown at or above adjacent finished grade.
3. Add Osmocate 10-10-10 fertilizer tablet per manufacturer's
recommendations.
4. Backfill with imported topsoil placed around sides of ball, tamped,
and each layer worked to settle backfill and eliminate voids and
air pockets. When excavation is approximately 2/3 full, fill shall be
watered thoroughly before placing remainder. Remainder of
backfill shall be placed and shall be watered again.
5. Tree leaders shall not be pruned. Crossing, injured, or dead
branches shall be removed. Shrubs shall be pruned to retain
natural character. Trees shall be staked immediately, as
indicated. Excessively pruned, malformed, or damaged stock
shall be removed and replaced.
6. Trees shall be mulched a minimum of 2" in depth. Mulch shall be
placed within 2 days of planting. Pull mulch away from crowns
and trunks. Smooth and fine grade mulch to form a smooth even
layer
Marianne Zarkin Landscape Architects 5
Graceland Subdivision
Urban Forestry Plan
Supplemental Report
M. Effective Tree Canopy Summary Table
Lot or Lot or 2X 2X 1.25 X Mature 1.25 X Total Effective
Tract# Tract Canopy Canopy Mature Canopy Mature Canopy %
(exclude Area Area (SF) Area (SF) Canopy Area Canopy Area Canopy
street) (SF) of of Area (SF) of Area (SF) per (Canopy
Preserved Preserved (SF) of Non- (SF) of lot of Area/Lot
Trees Stands Native Native Planted Tract or Tract
Planted Planted Stands Area)
Trees Trees
1 6,656 0 0 0 2,512 0 2,512 38%
2 4,859 0 0 0 982 0 982 20%
3 4,906 0 0 0 982 0 982 20%
4 5,039 0 0 0 1,256 0 1,256 25%
5 6,321 0 _ 0 1,570 491 0 2,061 33%
6 6,189 1,606 0 0 1,256 0 2,862 46%_
Tract A 11,030 6,556 0 6,280 3,985 0 16,821 152%
Street 'A' 7,908
Tract 'B' 1,825
Total * 54,733 27,476 50%
*Total site SF is the net of the gross site area (55,013 SF) minus the ROW
dedication (280 SF). It includes the two tracts (Street 'A' and Tract 'B') that do not
include trees.
Marianne Zarkin Landscape Architects 6
Graceland Subdivision
Urban Forestry Plan
Supplemental Report
N. Standard Effective Tree Canopy Requirement: 40%
0. N/A
P. Signature and Approval:
1. The tree preservation and removal site plan meets all of the
requirements in Section 10, part 1 of the Urban Forestry Manual;
2. The canopy site plan meets all of the requirement in Section 10, part 2
of the Urban Forestry Manual; and
3. The supplemental report meets all of the requirements in Section 10,
part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual.
Marianne Zarkin, ASLA
Landscape Architect
Marianne Zarkin Landscape Architects